I doubt either Falwell's estate or Dawkins derive much in the way of commercial benefit directly from their T-shirt sales. Rather I would expect they are more about reinforcing membership of their own particular in-groups. That said, I am curious as to why commercialism like this is used as pejorative term, and why you criticise the sale of t-shirts but not the far larger amounts made from book sales, donations or speaking engagements. It seems strange that a fairly simple and low-impact revenue stream like this would be cause for criticism. Why shouldn't they commercialise their philosophies in this way?

Also, I disagree with the description of Dawkins as Fundamentalist. He is passionate, hard-line, even extreme, but not fundamentalist, since he holds no one theory or idea as infallible. Even in the God Delusion he is careful to describe the supernatural as unlikely, rather than impossible, and takes great pains to highlight the importance of being able to change one's mind when presented with compelling evidence. To me this seems the very opposite of fundamentalism.

Does your last sentence mean that there will not be any Cognitive Edge T shirts? Coffee mugs, maybe?
Oops, the coffee mugs meme made me write this, it's not my fault.

Sorry James I disagree with you. The "t-shirts" was an illustration, happy to include the books and donations etc. In fact that was my point. In this context I think the commercialisation is a legitimate criticism as it dominates the sites (ie there is more there about selling than the ideas). As to the book I think the God Delusion reads like a fundamentalist tract with the off token statement to try and pretend he is still a scientist. Given the whole book is a straw man hypothesis I lost all respect for him when I read it.

Fair enough Dave, and I guess what you are reading as fundamentalism I read as exasperation and passion. Dawkins certainly is in business to sell his books and the like, but I don't see that this is different from the selling of his ideas. He is, I feel, entitled to make a living from his work.

Like you, Dave, I'm allergic to bumper sticker reductionism, and "spiritual beings having a human experience" aside, I have a hard time seeing de Chardin's thought encapsulated for a t-shirt. ("Teilhard vu"? "Before the internet, there was the Noosphere"?)

Oddly enough, i agree with Dawkin's ongoing assertion that science and religion are incompatible, but this is because I feel science and spirituality deal with two profoundly different spheres; science with the measurable and the known, and spirituality with the unknown and the possible and the yet-to-emerge. It's not that the two ought not speak to each other, but rather that they should honor the separate arenas in which they work: as you and Kaufmann (and, I feel, no shortage of working scientists!) seem to appreciate, the more we come to understand the more we find remains unknown, and the more vast the mystery becomes. (But perhaps I'm being idealistic in what 'religion' is capable of ceding.) In any case, what troubles me about Dawkins, and what does make me agree with you on his fundamentalist tendencies, is that he sees mystery as a one-dimensional problem upon which science "feeds;" rather than something intrinsically valuable. I, personally, don't see the "mysterium tremendum" and the ongoing impetus to explore and understand the world as mutually exclusive; again, the more we understand, the more fascinating and awe-inspiring that vast unknown becomes.

Thank you for the implicit recommendation of Reinventing the Sacred.